The Factors Behind Electoral Revolutions In The Postcommunist World By Illia Brazhko Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Political Science Supervisor: Robert Sata Budapest, Hungary (2014)
Abstract This thesis is an attempt to address the question why rigged elections lead to electoral revolutions only in some postcommunist countries. This regime transition took place in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, but not in other countries with a similar context. The main assumption of the research is that there is a set of factors that are responsible for this variation of outcomes. My approach in identifying these factors is twofold. First, I develop a theoretical framework based on three theories, related to the subject matter of electoral revolution phenomena: modernization, regime breakdown, and collective action theories. This framework suggests ten factors that make rigged elections in a given postcommunist country convert into an electoral revolution. Second, I conduct a comparative case study of presidential elections in Ukraine in 2004 and in Belarus in 2006 to test these factors. The elections in both countries were rigged, but consequent protests were successful only in Ukraine. Comparing the two countries shows that two theoretically derived factors appear not to be significant, while other eight are good antecedents of successful electoral revolutions in the postcommunist world. ii
Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Robert Sata, for guiding me through a challenging but interesting process of writing an MA thesis. I truly appreciate continuous assistance and thoughtful recommendations he provided. I would also like to say a very special word of gratitude to Erali Paiziev, as I cannot imagine going through this journey without his friendship. Last, but not less important, I want to thank my parents for being a true example, strong support, and a constant encouragement for me. iii
Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Chapter 1. Defining Electoral Revolutions... 6 Chapter 2. Building the Theoretical Framework... 9 2.1. Modernization Theory... 11 2.2. Regime Breakdown Theory... 14 2.3. Collective Action Theory... 21 Chapter 3. Case Studies... 28 3.1. 2004 Presidential Elections in Ukraine and the Orange Revolution... 28 3.2. 2006 Presidential Elections in Belarus... 38 Chapter 4. Findings... 46 Conclusion... 53 Bibliography... 56 iv
Introduction The fourth presidential election in the history of independent Ukraine was held in November 2004 in a highly charged political atmosphere. The incumbent president Leonid Kuchma had already served two terms in office and was unable to participate in the elections due to constitutional limits. Thus, the second round of electoral rave was characterized by contestation between the Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych (explicitly supported by the outgoing president) and opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko. The official count declared the victory of Yanukovych by 3%, but differed considerably from exit poll results, which gave Yushchenko an almost 11% lead. Many Ukrainians began to participate in mass demonstrations on the day to follow the rigged elections. More than thirty days of protests, which by different estimates attracted hundreds of thousands up to one million individuals (Kuzio 2005), resulted in the rerun of the second round. It was held under intensified scrutiny of both local and international observers, and showed Yushchenko s victory over Yanukovych by 8%. Kuchma s illiberal regime was overthrown, as the opposition leader became the third president of independent Ukraine. Even though details may vary, the general course of events presented above was rather similar to what happened after elections in Serbia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan in 2000, 2003, and 2005 respectively. Striking similarity of these cases allowed scholars to distinguish a separate phenomenon to describe them an electoral revolution. However, people in many countries in the postcommunist region where incumbents traditionally are more able to manipulate electoral outcomes in their favor (Bunce and Wolchik, Bringing Down Dictators: The Diffusion of Democratic Change in Communist and Postcommunist Europe and Eurasia 2007) did not manage to overthrow their illiberal governments this way, even though they made courageous attempts to mobilize and protect their political choice. Moreover, in some states no protests followed fraudulent elections at all. Such variation of cases in the postcommunist region 1
suggests that there is a set of factors that determine whether rigged elections in a given country would lead to an electoral revolution. Identifying these factors is what this thesis is dedicated to. Existing literature on electoral revolutions concentrates on various aspects of the phenomenon, e.g. why this type of transition is especially common among the postcommunist countries, the diffusion of electoral revolutions, their long-term consequences, the role of international actors in electoral revolutions etc. However, as of now no coherent theoretical framework of the causes of electoral revolutions exists. My research is an attempt to address this gap. It would be unjust, however, to claim that no efforts to conceptualize the factors that contribute to the success of postcommunist electoral revolutions have been made. A number of scholars addressed the puzzle of variation of outcomes in the countries that seem similar, and they are unanimous in the verdict that the analysts failed to predicted these democratic breakthroughs. Approaches aimed to address this problem have been quite different, as I will show below. D Anieri (2006) seeks to explain the variation in outcomes of fraudulent elections with the role of elites in the electoral protests, building mainly on the protest theory. The pivotal actions of elites, he argues, determine whether mass protests grow larger until success is inevitable. The problem is that while elite s role may be well accountable for the size of the protests, it does not explain why electoral fraud in some countries did not lead to any demonstrations altogether. Beissinger (2007) emphasizes the role of modularity, which refers to the borrowing of mobilization frames, repertoires, or modes of contention across cases (Beissinger 2007, 261). According to him, a remarkable thing about electoral revolutions that happened in the postcommunist region is that prior examples affected the likelihood of success in subsequent cases. Revolutionary modes of confrontation diffused through national borders and incited action where it otherwise would have not been likely. Since this approach alone does not explain why some countries were more successful in following prior examples, Beissinger proposes a 2
set of structural conditions that facilitate democratic electoral revolutions. Another attempt to identify and conceptualize a set of factors behind the success of electoral revolutions belongs to McFaul (2005). Using the method of similarity to assemble the list of commonalities that unite Serbian, Georgian, and Ukrainian cases, he proposes seven factors which arguably determine successful electoral revolutions. This set includes a semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime; an unpopular incumbent; a united opposition; independent electoralmonitoring capabilities; enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote; a political opposition capable of mobilizing large demonstrations to protests electoral fraud; and splits among the regime s coercive forces. However, the apparent problem with McFaul s study is that he selects the cases on the dependent variable, that is, the ones that have achieved the outcome of his interest. We cannot be sure that the factors he identified this way are strong antecedents of successful electoral revolutions, as unsuccessful cases could have featured these factors as well. Thus, McFaul s conclusions are not as robust as they could have been. Another study which must not be overlooked belongs to Bunce and Wolchik (2006a, 2006b), who have specifically highlighted the importance of diffusional dynamics and international donor support for electoral revolutions. This thesis does not seek to neglect the importance of previous research, but rather to propose and provide preliminary empirical testing of a theoretically clear explanation of the phenomena of electoral revolutions, and simultaneously back up existing explanations with theoretical justification. Formulating a theoretically justified account for electoral revolutions is especially important, since, as Kuhn (2010) argues, those studies that sought to establish causal relationships were based on a small number of cases and provided a list of explanatory variables that lacked clarity on how various factors determine the occurrence and success of postelectoral protests. 3
The first chapter of the thesis is aimed to give a precise definition of the phenomenon of electoral revolutions, as scholars define it in different ways. The factors assumed to affect the likelihood of electoral revolutions are presented in the second chapter. Despite the peculiarity of this phenomenon, many of its aspects fall into the subject of existing theories in political science, such as theory of non-democratic regimes breakdown, theories of collective action, and those of modernization. Studying these theories through the prism of electoral revolutions can suggest a set factors that explain why electoral revolutions happen in some countries but not in the others. The third chapter is dedicated to scrutinizing two case studies of postcommunist countries: Belarus and Ukraine. These countries were selected for a number of reasons. The main point is to compare two cases a positive and a negative in order to spot the differences that would explain the variation of outcomes. There are certainly other successful examples of electoral revolutions besides Ukraine (Serbia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan), but they lack a clear negative counterpart. From this point of view, Ukraine and Belarus constitute a good pair of cases, as the two countries not only were similar in many respects, but also experienced obviously rigged presidential elections, which led, however, to different outcomes: unsuccessful postelectoral protests in one, and a full-scale electoral revolution in the other. Also, events in Belarus in 2006 have not attracted much scholarly attention, unlike the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, that has been scrutinized well, so this case study may be of additional value to the subject matter of regime change and stability in the postcommunist world. Using comparative case study as one of the key scientific methods of the thesis, I limit myself to just two examples. Such a small number is definitely not enough to make strong claims, and I do not expect that my results would necessarily hold their robustness if tested against a greater number of cases. However, this method allows me to preliminary check theoretically derived factors, whereas further studies can use my findings to conduct a research based on more cases. 4
Also, I believe that a qualitative method in this thesis is preferable to a quantitative one. First, there is only a few empirical examples of electoral revolutions (according to the definition I use), so it is not possible to conduct a full statistical test and either prove or disprove significance of identified factors this way. Second, a comparative qualitative case study allows to trace how the protests unfolded, looking beyond simple variables and superficial indexes. The main findings of the thesis are presented in the third chapter, where I explain how the differences between Ukraine and Belarus lead to different outcomes. Looking ahead, almost all theoretically derived factors appear to be meaningful explanatory variables of successful electoral revolutions (at least based on this pair of cases). The last part is dedicated to a short summary of the research and a conclusion. 5
Chapter 1. Defining Electoral Revolutions It seems rather difficult to provide an accurate definition of what a revolution is, as events claimed to be examples of this phenomena are numerous and diverse. Early studies tended to focus mainly on the great revolutions of England (1640), France (1789), Russia (1917), and China (1949) (Goldstone 2001, 140), but the scope of scholarly attention has quickly expanded. Now, the list of events regarded as revolutionary includes hundreds of cases (Tilly 1993), from proletarian revolutions and military coups to violent and relatively peaceful regime transitions. Despite an apparent variety of these patterns, certain key features can be found in all of them: (a) effort to change an existing political regime; (b) broad formal and informal mass mobilization; and (c) bringing about change through non-institutional means, such as violence, protests, demonstrations, and strikes (Goldstone 2001, 142). In order to be called revolution per se, postcommunist electoral protests must satisfy these requirements as well. The term electoral revolution is usually used to refer to events that happened in such postcommunist countries as Serbia in 2000 (Bulldozer Revolution), Georgia in 2003 (Rose Revolution), Ukraine in 2004 (Orange Revolution), and Kyrgyzstan in 2005 (Tulip Revolution) (McFaul 2005, 5-6). Alternatively, these events sometimes are referred to as color (or colored) revolutions, as opposition often used a specific color as their symbol for easy identification. These cases followed a surprisingly similar scenario, although the size of the protest varied significantly across the countries. A notable feature present in all electoral revolutions (and which the phenomenon itself owes its name to) is the fact that the political turning point is an election. In particular, illiberal incumbents manipulate the electoral outcome in their favor, which becomes the de facto reason for mass protests. Consequent revolutionary events follow a similar pattern and share a set of common traits: (a) the opposition deploys extralegal means to ensure that the formal rules of the political game (i.e. free and fair elections) are followed; (b) incumbents and challengers 6
claim to possess a sovereign authority over the same territory; (c) all of these revolutionary situations ended without the massive use of violence by either the state or the opposition; and (d) these electoral revolutions caused a significant boost in the consolidation of democracy in the respective countries (McFaul 2007, 50). A common definition of electoral revolutions seeks to include these traits and thus goes as follows: attempts by opposition leaders and citizens to use elections, sometimes in combination with political protests, to defeat illiberal incumbents or their anointed successors; to bring liberal oppositions to power; and to shift their regimes in a decidedly more democratic direction (Bunce and Wolchik 2006b, 284). However, some points in the definition above need clarification and rectification. First, political protest is an inherent feature of all electoral revolutions, so its combination with elections is not optional but essential. Second, even though the consequent regime shift in a more democratic direction is an important feature of electoral revolutions, it does not need to be maintained over a prolonged period of time for a transition to be regarded as electoral revolution. Some scholars argued that, for example, it is not clear whether events in Kyrgyzstan in 2003 can be called an electoral revolution, because their impact on the democratic prospective of the country was unclear (Radnitz 2006). However, even though not all countries enjoyed long lasting results (e.g. Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan), there is no reason to exclude their cases from the list of successful electoral revolutions. The use of the word revolution is not meant to imply long-term consequences of these events (Tucker 2007, 536). But having brought about at least temporal change in the state s democratic performance, they satisfy the requirements of the definition of a political revolution outlined above. The fact of successful overthrowing of the current non-democratic regime by anti-regime forces in such cases is present, and consequent fallbacks to authoritarianism could have happened due to the reasons not connected to the electoral revolution itself (for instance, imperfections of institutions, underdeveloped political culture, and structural economic challenges). 7
Finally, the definition of electoral revolution above seems to include even attempts to defeat illiberal incumbents, irrespective of their outcome. This approach seems rather vague, so I find it useful to separate between an unsuccessful attempt, and a successful case of electoral revolution. Empirically, two stages of mass protests against electoral fraud exist: (1) when the people go out to the streets to defend the political choice they made; and (2) when the incumbent is actually overthrown as a result of the popular protests. In my understanding, only the case that successfully passed both stages can be regarded as an electoral revolution. If the protests, for any reason, discontinue during the first stage, such case can be referred to as an unsuccessful postelectoral protest. For instance, Armenian opposition demonstrations of 150,000 people following a stolen election in 1996 did not manage to overthrow the government (Way 2005a, 261), and thus cannot be recognized as an electoral revolution. A slightly modified operational definition I am going to use in this paper thus goes as follows: an electoral revolution is a successful attempt by opposition and citizens to use elections in combination with political protests to defeat fraudulent incumbents (or their anointed successors) and shift their regimes in a more democratic direction. 8
Chapter 2. Building the Theoretical Framework It is sometimes argued that the states of the postcommunist region were similar in many respects in the late 1980s through the early 1990s, that is, the period when they abandoned communism as an official doctrine and started large-scale transformations. However, the region is obviously far from being homogenous. The differences between the countries come from both structural legacies at the outsets of transitions and the variation in their process of postcommunist transformation itself. Political development of the last decades has produced a variety of outcomes in the region, from highly authoritarian regimes in Belarus and Middle Asia to relatively successful consolidated democracies in Central Europe (Pop-Eleches 2007, 908). Electoral revolutions as a means of democratization played an important role in this political development. Countries that did not emerge as full-scale democracies in the early 1990s and have not experienced dramatic electoral shifts have generally performed worse in terms of democratic consolidation than the ones that went through successful post-electoral breakdowns (Bunce and Wolchik 2006a, 6). Having experienced an electoral revolution, Kyrgyzstan seems to be an island of democracy surrounded by dictatorships of other Central Asian countries 1. Just as various regime trajectories in the postcommunist region suggest that there are certain factors that cause the differences in democratic performance, there have to be factors that are responsible for electoral revolutions as well. Differences in these factors determine why electoral transformations have happened in otherwise similar countries: Ukraine, but not in Russia or Belarus; in Georgia, but not in Armenia or Azerbaijan; in Kyrgyzstan, but not in Tajikistan or Uzbekistan. 1 Partly Free Kyrgyzstan received a score of 5 in the Freedom in the World 2014 index, while the average score of neighboring Not Free Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan is 6.4 (1 represents the most free and 7 the least free rating) 9
No existing single theory can explain why rigged elections lead to regime overthrow, so a framework based on multiple theories needs to be created in order to theoretically identify the factors that presumably influence the likelihood of an electoral revolution. This phenomenon is complex, and different theories can explain its different aspects. First, electoral revolutions are examples of collective action. Therefore, theories dealing with collective action problems can suggest some factors that cause electoral fraud to convert into mass mobilization. Second, electoral revolutions by definition are examples of regime breakdown, in particular breakdown of non-democratic regimes. Thus, various theories that identify the conditions under which authoritarian regimes are likely to fall can contribute to explaining the causes of successful electoral revolutions. Third, some light on the causes of the phenomenon can be shed by the modernization theory, which seeks to explain political transformations through the prism of economic development. From this point of view, certain economic factors may be responsible for electoral transformations. There are obviously more than three theories that can be used to explain the phenomenon of electoral revolutions. The list above is not exhaustive, but I see these three theories as being the most closely related to the subject matter of electoral revolutions. Examples of alternative theories may include social movement, revolutionary, agenda-setting, and diffusion theories, to name a few. While they are definitely related to postelectoral protests, I believe that the factors they would produce are identical to those that the theories I actually used suggested. Social movement theories, for instance, are highly complex and ramified, but on the general level go in line with the collective action theory in regards to successful postelectoral protests. Also, there are many directions within the school of social movements, so they can deliver rather inconsistent explanatory factors, if studied in detail. An obvious factor behind successful electoral revolutions is the role of the media. This factor can be explained with agenda-setting theory, which emphasizes media s ability to influence the salience of topics on the public 10
agenda (McCombs and Reynolds 2002, 1). But the same factor can also be derived from the collective action theory, as presented in one of the next sections. In the same way, theories dealing with the role of international actors in the process of regime change would not add significantly more to what is already suggested by regime breakdown theory: external actors can impact regime transition in a number of ways. The bottom line is that covering all other theories which are in one way or another related to the phenomenon of electoral revolutions exceeds the scope of this thesis. It seems both unreasonable, as they would simply suggest the factors that can be derived from other theories, and implausible due to the lack of time and space. Also, my point is not to get into over overspecific details of narrow theories, but use general paradigms to build the framework. Finally, it should be noted that the three theories I use are not completely isolated from each other as well. Just as the subjects of different theories may overlap, the factors suggested by them may well be similar or even identical. If a factor turns out to be supported by multiple theories (including the ones outline above), this fact additionally increases our certainty that it is likely to be a strong explanatory variable of successful electoral revolutions. 2.1. Modernization Theory The first theory that can be applied to the phenomena of electoral revolutions and provide some explanation as to why some countries succeed in such democratic transitions while other do not is modernization theory. Electoral protests in the postcommunist world explicitly sought to overthrow illiberal incumbents and bring about more democratic regimes. This feature allows to study the phenomena through the prism of modernization theory, as it aims to identify the prerequisites of democratization of authoritarian states. Strictly speaking, modernization theory is so broad that it can barely be called a theory per se. Rather, it is a paradigm, or a family of theories that unites most economic explanations to democratization. It was first introduced by economic historians, who stated that countries in 11
Asia, Africa, and Latin America in the mid-20 th century were primitive versions of developed Western societies. They were expected to eventually develop and become mature nations with small agricultural sector, large service and industrial sectors, and big share of urban population (Clark 2008). These ideas were introduced to political science by Lipset. As he puts it, all the various aspects of economic development industrialization, urbanization, wealth and education are so closely interrelated as to form one major factor which has the political correlate of democracy (Lipset 1963, 41). Classic modernization theory claims that societies are more likely to become democratic and stay democratic as they develop economically. Lipset and his adherents argue that as societies move from the traditional state to being more modern, they tend to change to more mature types of government as well. Dictatorship may be an appropriate and sustainable form of government in traditional, poor, and ill-developed societies, but as a country develops and its social structure becomes more sophisticated, it can no longer be run in an authoritarian command way. Changes in labor and manufacturing processes lead to active participation of new groups in political life and development of civil society. For these reasons, dictatorial regimes tend to collapse and transit to democracies (Przeworski, et al. 2000, 88). The debate on regime transitions in the postcommunist world has been dominated by approaches that presuppose convergence of postcommunist countries with Western Europe, rather than divergence of existing differences. Such teleological view of political transformations through the prism of social and economic changes (e.g. liberal market economy, civil culture) shows a strong connection with assumptions of the modernization theory (Blokker 2005, 504). The classic convergence hypothesis promised a relatively fast development of the postcommunist countries according to the Western example, but obviously failed to provide an explanation for the variation of political outcomes in the region. However, this fact does not necessarily undermine the whole modernization paradigm, but rather signals 12
a need for establishing a more precise causal explanation and developing a more sophisticated framework. For the purposes of this work, there is no need in examining the whole variety of models and explanations based on the paradigm. Ultimately, general political tendencies of the postcommunist region do go in accord with the modernization theory: those countries that have relatively succeeded in developing economically (Balkans, Central and East-Central Europe) have also performed relatively well in terms of democratic consolidation. I identify two main factors that explain successful electoral revolutions from the point of view of modernization theory. First, citizens of a country with favorable structural socio-economic conditions (which should not be confused with short-run economic performance of a specific government, considered by regime breakdown theory) are more likely to engage in postelectoral protests than the citizens of less developed states. The notion of structural conditions should be explained: it stands for relatively high level of urbanization and economic development, a high rate of educated people, developed civil society etc., as predicted by Lipset. For the purposes of this thesis, such variables are represented by the factor of the level of socio-economic development, which can be estimated using such indexes as the Human Development index, corruption level, urban population share, gross national income per capita (purchasing power parity adjusted), life expectancy, and public spending on education. The second factor that is important to consider is the degree of market liberalization and privatization. Countries that have managed to build relatively free market economies and privatized their state enterprises have consequently experienced the emergence of new business elites. These groups are expected to defend their economic interest in the first place, and, if need be, oppose respective authoritarian governments. The ways business elites can undermine the rule of an illiberal incumbent include funding the opposition, investing into NGOs, and directly participating in the political game. 13
In sum, modernization theory can suggest two factors that might explain why postelectoral protests happen and succeed in some states of the region but not in the others. The first factor is the level of socio-economic development: I expect that the more developed a country is, the more likely it is to experience an electoral revolution as a result of voting fraud. The second factor is degree of privatization and market liberalization. Business elites capable of opposing political regimes in order to defend their interests are expected to be found in the countries that have relatively free economic conditions and privately owned enterprises. 2.2. Regime Breakdown Theory An important feature of electoral revolutions is that they are successful attempts to overthrow a manipulative (i.e. non-democratic) government and establish a new regime. Thus, the existing theoretical framework on the breakdown of authoritarian governments can be applied to electoral revolutions. The literature on regimes breakdown is broad and versatile. There is a plenty of separate studies on the subject, each focusing on a different aspect of authoritarian regimes transitions. Considering all of them in order to build a complete and complex theoretical framework would obviously exceed the scope and the limit of this thesis. Thus, I am going to concentrate on general patterns and causal explanations and leave out overspecific details. It should also be noted that theories of breakdown of authoritarian regimes constitute a theoretical branch in political science separate from the family of democratization theories (one of which is already mentioned modernization theory). Even though their subjects may overlap, theories of non-democratic regimes breakdown are only partially related to democratization theories. The former tend to focus on reasons why concrete governments fall, and usually do not consider what kinds of regimes emerge afterwards. Many studies on transitions have been made, but few generalizing explanations have been able to empirically hold their robustness across a range of many different cases. The reason for that, 14
as Remmer argues, is that variations within the forms of authoritarianism produce different political outcomes (Remmer 1986, 64-68). In fact, various kinds of authoritarianism can differ from each other just as much as they differ from democracy (Geddes 1999, 6). Dissimilarities in nature, structure, and behavior of authoritarian regimes have important systematic implications on the causes and the process of their fall. From this point of view, a theoretical framework which seeks to explain the causes of non-democratic regimes breakdown should be based on various types of authoritarianism. There are different approaches to classifying authoritarian regimes, which can use such factors as the peculiarities of decision-making process, regime s relation with the opposition and the masses, an actor who de facto forms the executive branch etc. However, not all typologies are relevant for the postcommunist world; many types, e.g. military dictatorship, are virtually absent here. Therefore, only those kinds of authoritarianism that can be found in the region should be taken into account and included into the framework. I will consider two theoretical types: personal and neopatrimonial dictatorships. The former one is a diverse type of non-democratic systems, the distinguishing character of which is that the individual leader is the single source of authority, and that power depends on access to, closeness to, and support from the leader (Huntington 1991). The leader dominates the government, the military, and the ruling party (as long as it exists). During and after a seizure of power, a dictator usually surrounds himself with a personalist clique, often formed from a network of friends, relatives, and allies. Some factions may form around potential rivals to the leader, but because so much power is concentrated in the hands of one individual, he generally controls the coalition-building agenda, distributing rewards to promote loyalty. Both the clique and rival faction continue to cooperate as long as they have an access to the benefits distribution, which makes the system very stable (Geddes 1999, 17-18). Belarus under Lukashenka is an example of this type of authoritarianism (Matsuzato 2004, Bennett 2011). 15
Given such nature of personal dictatorships, they tend to be one of the most long-lasting types of authoritarianism. Aside from the death of the dictator and foreign intervention, the only threat to the stability of the regime can come from the members of the elite (Geddes 1999). However, their interests normally coincide with the interests of the incumbent, as their well-being and very life directly depends on his power. The only condition that may thus lead to regime s breakdown from the above is when the elites have a strong incentive to defect the ruler. The strength of the opposition appears to be a meaningful factor for predicting a regime s fall from this point of view. If regime s competitors seem strong enough to be able to successfully eliminate the dictator, some members of the clique may decide to support the opposition and engage in a risky coup, for example in exchange for more benefits under the new regime. The second type neopatrimonial dictatorships is characterized by a chief executive's maintenance of state authority through an extensive network of personal patronage, rather than through ideology or impersonal law (Snyder 1992, 379). The phenomenon of neopatrimonialism emerged as a fusion of modern institutions and patrimonialism traditional form of authority and source of legitimacy (Pitcher, Moran and Johnston 2009, 126). Neopatrimonialism is particularly common in Central Asia, e.g. Tajikistan under Rahmon can serve as an example of regime with a strong neopatrimonial character (Nourzhanov 2005, Dagiev 2013). Neopatrimonial authoritarianism largely overlaps with personal dictatorship, so it is important to highlight some distinctive traits of the former concept. First, the fact that a political leader relies on matters other than simply legal-rational does not make him a neopatrimonial ruler. Ukraine under Kuchma was surely not a pure personal dictatorship, but resembled this type of authoritarianism much more than a classic neopatrimonial regime. For that matter, as Roth argues, even American presidents in order to be effective cannot rely merely on his constitutional powers, but also build their own apparatus using personal relations, ties, and 16
loyalty (Roth 1968, 198). This certainly does not make the United States a neopatrimonial regime. Neopatrimonialism is characterized by the dominance of patronage networks in politics, with modern institutional frameworks being embedded into them. This feature is not necessarily present in personal dictatorships. Two other distinctive features of neopatrimonialism are clientelism and political legitimization through the illegitimate use of state resources (Ishikawa 2008). The rulers of neopatrimonial regimes derive their authority from the provision of personal benefits to the clients. Within the government, personal benefits can take the form of jobs, control over monopolistic rents, and the possibility to create their own clientelist networks. At the lower levels, the benefits may exist in the form of public resources distributed through licenses, contracts, projects etc. (Bratton and Van de Walle 1994, 458). Finally, neopatrimonial leaders hardly distinguish between the public and private treasuries, arbitrarily using the state budget for their own political needs. Therefore, neopatrimonial states cannot develop effectively; as constant kleptocracy of state resources leads to chronic financial crises and reduced prospects for investments and sustainable economic growth (Ishikawa 2008, 10). Snyder (1992) provides an excellent framework for explaining the peculiarities of transitions from neopatrimonial authoritarianism. He identifies three critical relationships that affect the mode and the likelihood of breakdown: the relationship of the ruler to the military; the relationship of the ruler to domestic elites; and the relationship of domestic actors to foreign powers. The first factor affecting the transition is the degree to which the ruler has undermined the autonomy of the armed forces: the less autonomous is the military, the more stable is the regime. The control of the armed forces over the supply of their matériel, the ability of officers to predict their career paths and to communicate discontent with one another, the degree to which the officer corps is divided along ethnic lines, and the dictator s capacity to purge elements of 17
the armed forces whose loyalty he questions are indicators that can help assess the degree of military autonomy (Snyder 1992, 380-382). The second factor is the degree to which the dictator excludes elites from political and economic perks. Neopatrimonial regimes that effectively coopt elite factions can inhibit the growth of both radical and moderate opposition. Such regimes, consequently, tend to be relatively stable and long-lived. On the other hand, neopatrimonial dictatorships that exclude elites from patronage or limit it to a narrow clique encourage growth and discontent of the opposition, and are rather unstable (Snyder 1992, 383-384). Finally, the third factor is the role of foreign powers. The first way of influencing domestic political game and affecting the likelihood of breakdown is to put pressure on the regime. When foreign actors have limited leverage over the dictator, their influence is restricted to supporting the opposition. The degree to which they support regime s competitors can strongly affect its surviving capacity (Snyder 1992, 384-385). Personal rulership and neopatrimonial dictatorship are similar regime types and are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some countries may have features of both simultaneously. Moreover, many authoritarian regimes go through changes that can affect their classification (Geddes 1999, 9). Thus, it is sometimes impossible to identify a regime as fitting neatly into one theoretical clear-cut category (Huntington 1991, 581). However, the features of neopatrimonialism and personal rulership are widespread particularly in the postcommunist region (which is the main point of interest of my thesis), so the peculiarities of their transitions must be included into the model. In addition to subtypes of authoritarianism, some scholars prefer extended political regime typologies, which feature more options than simple trichotomous variable (democracy, authoritarianism, totalitarianism). In particular, it is often argued that many regimes are hybrid, as they are neither democracies, nor full-scale autocracies. It is important to consider such regimes too, as, mixing authoritarian and democratic features, they can have different prospects 18
for breakdown than pure forms of authoritarianism. Moreover, hybrid regimes are also very common in the postcommunist world, where countries have not managed to establish wellfunctioning democracies. Levitsky and Way recognize, for example, Serbia under Slobodan Milošević and Ukraine under Leonid Kuchma (both countries experienced electoral revolutions during their rules) as examples of competitive authoritarianism (Levitsky and Way 2002, 52). In general, hybrid regimes in the postcommunist region share such traits as continued dominance of old regime incumbents, weak civic society, weak rule of law, and lack of democratic history (Way 2005a, 231), but still have some kind of political competition. Hybrid regimes also feature some peculiarities in regards to their transition. According to Diamond (2002), the defining feature of competitive authoritarian regimes is significant parliamentary opposition (Diamond 2002, 29). The feature that defines the very phenomenon of hybrid regimes can serve as a factor of classifying them and to a certain extent determining their future political trajectories. Way (2005a) identifies factors that undermine autocratic consolidation and facilitate regime competitiveness in the postcommunist region. First, elite contestation can contribute to a higher degree of political competition. The consolidation of authoritarianism is always endangered by elite disunity. Such organizations as political parties, well-established patron-client relationships, or large quasi-familial networks have been used to reduce elite defection, while the absence or weakness if these increases opportunism among elites, who are more likely to change sides when they perceive the incumbent to be vulnerable (Way 2005a, 236). Second, authoritarian regimes surviving capacity is affected by international pressure to democratize, as incumbents that enjoy the absence of such pressure are more likely to undertake antidemocratic measure to stay in power. The third source of regime competitiveness, according to Way, is the strength of a national identity, which can be framed in anti-incumbent terms. Groups that are able to frame regime opposition in national 19
terms that have broad resonance in the society normally have an easier time mobilizing popular support. Finally, a factor that is recognized to affect the likelihood of all authoritarian regimes breakdown is economic performance. Dix (1982) acknowledges that poor economic performance is not by itself a sufficient condition for breakdown, but it does increase its likelihood. After reviewing existing research on regime change (in particular, by O Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead) Bermeo comes to a conclusion that authoritarian regimes do not seem to collapse during periods of relative prosperity (Bermeo 1990, 367). Haggard and Kaufman (1995) also emphasize the role of economic crisis in regime transitions. Geddes (1999) finds statistical evidence that all types of authoritarian regimes are more vulnerable during the times of economic decline. In other words, scholars seem unanimous in arguing that during economic declines any regime (democratic, any type of authoritarian, or hybrid) is more likely to fall. Inflation, unemployment, declines in rates of growth or personal income seem to have always been associated with unscheduled changes of government (Dix 1982). And dictatorships are no exception. Authoritarian governments may be insulated from the distress of ordinary citizens to some extent, but they still must deliver benefits to their own group of supporters in order to survive in power (Geddes 1999, 4). Lack of support from ordinary citizens due to economic decline does not contribute to the longevity of authoritarian rules either. Therefore, theories of regime breakdown suggest a number of factors that facilitate instability of dictatorships and can explain their fall. Summarizing all of the above, six factors can be identified. The first is elite disunity/defection: there is no transition whose beginning is not the consequence direct or indirect of important divisions within the authoritarian regime itself (O'Donnell and Schmitter 1986, 19). The second factors is the strength of opposition. The third factor is autonomy of regime s coercive forces. Foreign influence, in forms of pressure on the dictator and support for the opposition, can also contribute to regime collapse. The fifth factor 20
is existence of national identity, different from the personal cult of the leader, which paves the way for relatively easy mobilization. Finally, the sixth factor is poor economic performance, which is argued to undermine stability of all types of political regimes. 2.3. Collective Action Theory Electoral revolution is an action taken together by a group of people whose goal is to achieve a certain common objective. Thus, this phenomenon falls into the subject of collective action theories, which can provide some explanation of why some countries were able to mobilize enough people to put pressure on illiberal regimes as a response to rigged elections (that is, to overcome the collective action problem), while others did not. The literature on collective action is broad and developed; examining it all exceeds the scope of this thesis. Thus, my goal is to identify the general factors that can explain overcoming general collective action problems, and link them to the subject matter of social movements, in particular, postelectoral protests. The concept of collective action problem was introduced to political science by such scholars as Olson and Schelling. Further, such scholars as Chong and Kuran have applied the concept to study social movements and revolutions (Tucker 2007). In general, collective action problem characterizes a situation in which a group would benefit from certain cooperation, but the lack of individual incentives to participate in actions necessary to cooperate and achieve the common goal does not allow it to be attained. Social movements (which electoral revolutions are examples of) follow the same problem. The public goods sought by such movements require participation of a large number of citizens. When individuals are unable to coordinate their efforts to produce and enjoy a common good, the likelihood of a collective action taking place is decreased (Chong 1991). Such problem occurs due to high cost of participating in the action, uncertain benefit from cooperation, and a belief that likelihood of the group successfully attaining the goal is low. Therefore, solving a collective action problem for any movement depends on three factors: cost of participation, expected benefits of attaining the goal, and 21
perceived likelihood of success (Tucker 2007, 540). In order to apply collective action theory to electoral revolutions, these general factors need to be translated into the factors meaningful for the subject matter of electoral revolutions. The common goal sought by protests following fraudulent elections is not only overthrowing the illiberal regime (as all citizens would benefit from getting rid of the government that is not restrained by the people), but also establishing a new democratic regime (which is hoped to promote rule of law, fight corruption, have transparent budget policies etc.). If the opposition is not united, if political competitors of the regime are not viewed by people as strong leaders and good rulers, the likelihood of solving the collective action is low. In other words, people do not want to risk and engage in political protests for the sake of weak and unpopular opposition. The cost of participation in political demonstrations varies from one s mere loss of time, to an arrests, possible repressions (e.g. loss of job because of certain political preferences), imprisonment and even the loss of life. If the citizens are aware of the regime s violent and repressive character, they may find the cost of participation too high to engage in electoral protests. In turn, regimes that are less violent and do not usually use force against protestors are more vulnerable in that respect, as people in such regimes are more likely to take to the streets to defend their political choice. Thus, regime propensity to use violence against demonstrations can be taken as a cost of participation in collective action (postelectoral protest), affecting each individual s decision. Finally, the perceived likelihood of success of the protests depends on the magnitude of electoral manipulations that the regime engaged in. If manipulations were marginal and citizens understand that even a re-run of elections under increased scrutiny would not change the results (i.e. the benefits of attaining the goal are uncertain), they obviously have little to no incentive to participate in a protest movement. But if the regime used major electoral fraud that is 22
suspected to have influenced the final outcome, the situation changes radically. Explicit largescale manipulation helps people to solve collectives action problem by raising the stakes of the game. It is important to note that citizens in authoritarian regimes usually have no objective information on the extent of the fraud and the scope of existing mobilization (if it has already started). What affects their individual choice whether to engage or not is perceived likelihood of successful outcome of the protests. From this point of view, what matters is not only the real magnitude of fraud, but also the ability of mass media to expose and transfer this information to the people. Aiming to reach a large audience (including citizens from different regions) radio, television, and newspapers can be used to quickly transmit information and increase the scope of popular dissatisfaction with the regime. A successful outcome of postelectoral protests also depends on individuals awareness of existing protests. Once anti-governmental mobilization has started, the regime is interested in putting the media under censorship, either completely ignoring the protests, or understating the number of participants. The role of independent media in an objective coverage of such events and bringing up-to-date information to the people is crucial as well. From this point of view, media sources need to be available to the opposition and accessible to the public. The collective action premise of electoral revolutions has been studied relatively well, as some scholars have used it to explain the occurrence of postelectoral protests. Tucker (2007) applies collective action framework specifically to the question why people choose to go to the streets following electoral fraud. His arguments is that strong grievances against the regime are not a sufficient condition for an illiberal regime to be overthrown, as the costs associated with participating in demonstrations are usually high, and the chances of success are very uncertain. Fraudulent election can change an individual s calculus whether to engage in mobilization, and therefore serve as a perfect moment for collective anti-governmental movement. Fearon (2011) 23